O/T: What's Next?

There are wait times for cancer treatment and long wait times for many other types of treatment, but it's free. One thing I didn't mention, is that "Yes" Tim is correct in that in many respects the Canadian Health Care system is bloated and wasteful. I can't fault him for saying that, but there's also a great many advantages to the Canadian health system and I've benefited from them more than once. Time either doesn't believe there's any good within our system or he chose to ignore them which is why I rushed to defend it despite its inadequacies.

If I was hobbling around in great pain while waiting for a hip replacement, I admit that I'd investigate going to the US to pay for immediate treatment. But, that kind of treatment costs thousands of dollars and is certainly not within the reach of many people unless they wanted to take out a second mortgage on their house, assuming they owned a house in the first place.

Reply to
Upscale
Loading thread data ...

I can't argue with you there. If I was in that kind of pain, I'd search frantically for medical care to relieve that pain.

Reply to
Upscale

And, that's exactly what I said. To get that free health care in the US, you have to be poor. I repeated it more than once. Try reading a little closer.

That I certainly don't agree with. *Most* people as you state are not rich, but of middle income. A few serious brushes with the US medical system and there's every chance their middle income status is in jeopardy.

Ahh, I see, you're stuck on "wealthy people". Most people are NOT WEALTHY. Typical money grubbing outlook. If you've got money, then screw everybody else. As long as you can pay for what you need, then everybody else can go to hell. Absolutely zero social conscience just as long at your needs are looked after. Very selfish of you.

So tell me Tim. Have you ever in your life had unprotected sex? Not once? Have you ever eaten a Big Mac? No? You've never eaten a bag of potato chips or had a beer? I realize you're as pure as they come and society has no one except itself to blame. But, I have to ask, exactly how much hypocritical bullshit do you expect people to believe?

And that's your problem. You're absolutely convinced that everyone who supports socialized healthcare is looking for a freebie. You *know without a doubt* that there's nobody out there who has consideration for others besides themselves.

Selfishness is your highest ideal and you live by might is right. Common ideals of many citizens of the US. All the current financial woes of those financial institutions that failed in the US are a direct result of that kind of greedy outlook and now it's starting to bite you in the butt big time.

Enjoy!

Reply to
Upscale

From a non-paritisan standpoint:

In 1999, Glass-Steagal was repealed. This law from the 1930's distinctly separated commercial and investment banking. Phil Grahmm (R) sponsored it, Clinton signed it. Grahmm soon became a banking lobbyist.

In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting the market cap of a company.

These should be re-regulated.

Reply to
B A R R Y

So, let me get this right. You have a *right* to keep what you've earned AND a simultaneous *right* to healthcare, even if others have to pay for it. IOW, it is the job of other people to ensure your middle class lifestyle is not compromised. Is that correct?

You're the one advocating a "screw everybody else" scheme not me. I advocate that everyone maintain title to that which they have earned legitimately. You advocate a system wherein other people are forced to pay for what you want. Lovely.

It is not selfish to object to having your wallet looted or being robbed at the point of a government gun. It takes a particular kind of dishonesty to try and paint this kind of theft as noble, but you're sure good at it.

I never claimed to have never done something irresponsible. But I do not advocate the use of government force to steal from you to may for my mistakes ... and that's the difference between us.

They are. Socialized healthcare punishes the healthy/responsible to the benefit of the ill/irresponsible and it does so using force - the force of government. It is dishonest and immoral.

You, of course, care so much about others that your "consideration" involves giving yourself permission to steal from your fellow citizens. Bravo.

My highest ideal is integrity. It is dishonest to steal from one citizen, give it to another, and then try and claim some imaginary moral high ground.

The current "financial woes" are not just those of the US, they are global and they have a common cause, and it is indeed greed. It is the greed of the rank and file citizens around the world who insist on things they have not earned being their "right" and use their respective governments to loot other citizens to get what they want. The current financial problems showed up in the banks only because that's where the money is moved, but at its core, this is payday for the socialism/communism you adore so much.

Reply to
Tim Daneliuk

I'm about as anti regulation as you get, and I at least partly agree with you. The idea of naked shorting seems to be the ultimate ponzi scheme to me. It distorts the financial reality of the markets by trading "value" that doesn't even exist. On its face, it sure feels like a scam to me ...

Reply to
Tim Daneliuk

"B A R R Y" wrote

The "uptick" or short selling rules have been reinstated. This originally were imposed as a result of Joseph's Kennedy's pulling enormous amount of money out of the stock market during the 1929 crash. It was an anti Kennedy rule.

The big problem was not so much the short selling, which can work quite well as eveidenced in the futures and currency markets. It was the practice of "naked short selling". It was the ability to make a trade without putting up any of your own money. No matter how highly leveraged the futures and currency markets are. you put your own ass on the line with every trade. And you have the funds to back it up. The exchanges have strict margin requirements.

If you have a bad trade, you pay for it. And if you can't, your broker does. This keeps the traders honest. And this is strictly regulated. Some margin requirements were changed for a short while about three months ago. These were rescinded because nothing had changed and the risk was being addressed in the way that it had worked will for quite some time. That said, some brokerages that handle commodities and futures are tightening up on their margin requirements.

Anyway, what had occurred recently by the big boys speculating in stocks was that they were making some vry big short sells WITHOUT PUTTING UP ANY OF THEIR OWN MONEY. This is what John Mc Cain has been referring to as not having any skin in the game. The whole problem with the subprime martgages, etc has always been is that the folks who make the loans pass them off to others. And that is exactly what the stock short sellers had done. Without any risk to themselves, they make others pay for their trades. Indeed, in many ways, they fueled a market that may not have existed as strongly as it did because of their naked short sells.

Reply to
Lee Michaels

When?

Or do you mean "The List"?

Reply to
B A R R Y

Within the last few days, I think last wednesday or thursday. Don't quote me on that. This is not my area of expertise. Just the general fallout I hear from the financial news. I do not directly work with stocks.

I do know that the naked short selling is now prohibited.

I am pretty sure that stock based futures are still intact. But these only exist for certain stocks and it is a very limited market. It hasn't really caught on. The equity index futures are available for that sort of thing. And all of these have strict margin requirements.

No.

Reply to
Lee Michaels

Perhaps my point of view has been influenced by my experiences. My best friend throughout grade school and high school came from a family of medical professionals. One brother was a doctor, one a vet, and his sister was a pharmacist. His father was the first licensed physician in the state.

All of them considered medicine a calling, not a business. The doctor brother came out of med school and went to work in Appalachia. He chuckled as he told stories of being paid in corn, chickens, and occasionally moonshine.

My doctor sometime later had given up a lucrative practice in Chicago and moved to a little town near the Wisconsin border because he couldn't stand the way he was starting to treat medicine as a business.

So I'll at least check out the doc in the Ford to see why he's driving it. He may be a drinker, a gambler, a loser in a malpractice suit, or he may just be my kind of doctor.

So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that getting rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright immoral, certainly distasteful. When medicine became a "business" instead of a "calling" we all became poorer.

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

That's a very good summation of what I hear from the Canadians I know.

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

Tim will never get that point.

Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes bankrupt from medical bills.

It happens in the US with disturbing frequency. I'd say at least 2 or 3 times a year I read appeals for help in our local paper - not for indigents, but for middle class people who have exhausted their resources, and in some cases the resources of family members.

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

I heartily agree - that's why I could never be a liberal Democrat.

Reply to
Tim Daneliuk

Or, as is the case with my doctor.. his exes are driving Benz's and he drives a 12 year old 320i

Reply to
Robatoy

Or maybe he just doesn't care much about cars. The CEO of Word Perfect used to ride around in a clapped out 20 year old pickup truck until the marketing guys got it across to him that people seeing him in that though that the company was in trouble and he got some kind of shiny new econobox to go to work in.

Cost me a thousand bucks at the emergency room to get four stitches the other day. I don't think anybody was profiteering though--most of that was "emergency room charge", which I understand is a kind of tax (imposed by the hospital, not the government) on those who can pay to cover the costs for those who can't, since the ER is required by law to take all comers regardless of financial situation. The doctor's fee was something like a hundred bucks.

Reply to
J. Clarke

"Larry Blanchard" wrote

But maybe not for long, eh? New York Times, Monday September 22, 2008:

formatting link
the 4,000 Canadian doctors and 6,000 nurses who've come here to practice in the last ten years, plus the mandated 20% reduction in the number of doctors graduating from medical schools, may well insure that an increasing number, who would rather be bankrupt and alive, will come to the US to get the "best medical care money can buy" ... and without having to wait for it?

IOW, TINSTAAFL, eh?

I too, wish there was ... but the bright side for us, since there was no guarantee issued granted with "life", is that it's the 21st century, not the

1st - 20th.
Reply to
Swingman

formatting link
that was a article published in 2000, not 2008, which the mast head reads... can't trust the NYT about anything.

Reply to
Swingman

snip

You've heard of Medicaid? Those in such unfortunate circumstances do and will receive needed care....as well as transportation(in most locales) to said needed medical appointments. They may indeed lose assets but that kind of follows anyone whom declines or can't afford insurance be it for their house (fire), car (wreck) or medical (health).

What I don't understand is why it is the Gov. or insurance companies or everybody but who are often treated as the villains when it is the medical providers themselves and the drug companies that have increased medical costs by at least 3X the inflation rate for the past few decades. Profiteering at the expense of the ill seems like the true problem. I have a few co-pays today exceeding the total cost of a specific medical service in the 70's........Rod

Reply to
Rod & Betty Jo

I read that only applies to a list of mostly-financial stocks.

Reply to
B A R R Y

My mother went bankrupt from medical bills.

I'm not going into details here, but there are very necessary medical treatments not covered my Medicaid.

Reply to
B A R R Y

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.